WONG FO YEUNG v. WIN CAPTIAL (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

WONG FO YEUNG v. WIN CAPTIAL (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

The canopy collapse was primarily caused by severe corrosion and failure to maintain the canopy (major cause) with contributory causes including long-term heavy storage in the unauthorised Hut, recent debris loading and vibration from demolition, and a diagonal scaffolding brace resting on the canopy edge; having...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WONG FO YEUNG v. WIN CAPTIAL (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Liao Kuo Chun; Plaintiff: Wong Fo Yeung; Plaintiff: Choi Sau Chun; Plaintiff: Chan Sau Chun; Plaintiff: Lam Kan Mau; 1st Defendant: Win Captial (HK) Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Ho Ching Mui; 3rd Defendant: Wong Tak Sing; 4th Defendant: The Incorporated Owners of Mei King Mansion Phase II
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Case Number
HCPI1176/2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Actions and Contribution Proceedings / Judgment on Apportionment of Contribution and Costs (assessment Stage Concluded; Contribution Hearing)
Outcome
Apportionment determined: 1st defendant to bear 35% of plaintiffs' damages; 4th defendant to bear 65%; 1st defendant ordered to contribute 35% of plaintiffs' costs on the issue of quantum; other costs reserved and liberty granted to 4th defendant to apply for contribution to costs of contribution proceedings after...
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Contribution Under Statute, Unauthorised Building Works (ubws), Canopy Collapse Causation, Assessment of Damages and Costs, Third Party Contractors and Responsibility
Source Language
en
Tort Public Nuisance Negligence Building and Construction Law Civil Procedure Costs and Contribution Apportionment of Liability Contribution Under Statute Unauthorised Building Works (ubws) +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liao Kuo Chun

Plaintiff

Wong Fo Yeung

Plaintiff

Choi Sau Chun

Plaintiff

Chan Sau Chun

Plaintiff

Lam Kan Mau

Plaintiff

Win Captial (HK) Ltd

1st Defendant

Ho Ching Mui

2nd Defendant

Wong Tak Sing

3rd Defendant

The Incorporated Owners of Mei King Mansion Phase II

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Actions and Contribution Proceedings / Judgment on Apportionment of Contribution and Costs (assessment Stage Concluded; Contribution Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What caused the canopy collapse and which actors materially contributed?
  2. 2 How to apportion contribution between 1st defendant (shop owner/landlord) and 4th defendant (Incorporated Owners) under s4(1) Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance Cap.377?
  3. 3 Whether 1st defendant must contribute to plaintiffs' costs incurred against the defendants and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

The canopy collapse was primarily caused by severe corrosion and failure to maintain the canopy (major cause) with contributory causes including long-term heavy storage in the unauthorised Hut, recent debris loading and vibration from demolition, and a diagonal scaffolding brace resting on the canopy edge; having weighed causative potency and relative blameworthiness the court apportioned responsibility 35% to the 1st defendant and 65% to the 4th defendant and ordered that the 1st defendant contribute 35% of the plaintiffs' costs on the issue of quantum while reserving other costs and granting liberty to the 4th defendant to apply after taxation of costs.

Court Disposition

Apportionment determined: 1st defendant to bear 35% of plaintiffs' damages; 4th defendant to bear 65%; 1st defendant ordered to contribute 35% of plaintiffs' costs on the issue of quantum; other costs reserved and liberty granted to 4th defendant to apply for contribution to costs of contribution proceedings after...

Orders

  • 1st defendant is to bear 35% of the plaintiffs' assessed damages (contribution apportionment) and 4th defendant 65%
  • Order that the 1st defendant contributes 35% of the costs incurred by the plaintiffs in the five actions on the issue of quantum